photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Craig Lamson | profile | all galleries >> wide_zoom_test >> full_frames tree view | thumbnails | slideshow
Canon-17-40_4.jpg
Canon-17-40_4.jpg		 nikon-17-35_28.jpg
nikon-17-35_28.jpg		 Canon-16-35_28.jpg
Canon-16-35_28.jpg		 sigma-15-30_35.jpg
sigma-15-30_35.jpg
canon-17-40_11.jpg
canon-17-40_11.jpg		 nikon-17-35_11.jpg
nikon-17-35_11.jpg		 canon-16-35_11.jpg
canon-16-35_11.jpg		 Sigma-15-30_11.jpg
Sigma-15-30_11.jpg

comment | share
jan 08-Oct-2006 09:54
Thank you for this test. It helped a lot. Best regards.Jan
Guest 03-Jan-2006 01:41
Very interessant test.

Personnally I have been always interested by the performances of the Nikon 17-35 lens, especially due to the excellent users' report on FM boards.

Here you provide a relevant comparison on a FF body, which highlights (in my opinion) the rather similar performances of both Nikon and Canon lenses (instead of the standard comparisons between shots taken with FF Canon bodies and cropped Nikon bodies.

Keep up the good work

Sincerely yours.

Shaitan.
Guest 28-Nov-2005 04:17
Appreciate the test - thanks. The other poster clearly doesn't understand the technicals at all - eg. dpi is a tag, and means nothing. I have the 16-35/2.8 and from this test, the Sigma 15-30 looks a tad better, but then the 16-35 at f3.5 might equal / better it. I sold my 15-30 when I got the 16-35, but perhaps I had a bad copy... it did get dropped at one point! ;) It was still a good lens, but in the corners (1.6x crop), it was going a bit fuzzy - I find gravel driveways good for seeing this corner softness the best / most difficult target.
Guest 28-Nov-2005 04:17
Appreciate the test - thanks. The other poster clearly doesn't understand the technicals at all - eg. dpi is a tag, and means nothing. I have the 16-35/2.8 and from this test, the Sigma 15-30 looks a tad better, but then the 16-35 at f3.5 might equal / better it. I sold my 15-30 when I got the 16-35, but perhaps I had a bad copy... it did get dropped at one point! ;) It was still a good lens, but in the corners (1.6x crop), it was going a bit fuzzy - I find gravel driveways good for seeing this corner softness the best / most difficult target.
Bert Armijo 24-Sep-2005 06:22
Thanks for the posting. I shoot a 1DmkII and have been thinking about getting a 5D as well. I've been waiting for the reviews and was especially interested in performance with wide angle lenses because of all the posts I keep reading. I find the results with the 16-35, which I use, quite acceptable. Actually, the distortion concerns me more than softness or light fall-off, but I doubt I'd have such an exacting subject very often.

Thanks again,
Bert



Thanks for posting useful data.
Craig Lamson 19-Jun-2005 15:34
You didn't read the intro did you John?

The lighting is exactly the same. The lenses were tested at equal f-stops other than wide open. They were all shot ont he same camera, a Canon 1DsMKII and an adapter was used to mount the Nikon and Sigma lenses to the 1Ds.

The full frame shots were reduced in size to save space, and full rez 300dpi PNG files were cropped from the original files and posted at different f-stops for actual comparisons.

Quite frankly I'm not concerned if you are interested in the test. Take it or leave it, but at least get the facts right if you are going to post negative comments.
John-Paul Greco 18-Jun-2005 20:45
This is a very POOR test!

For one, the light is inconsistant. Two, these are different types of cameras used!

Try a test with film bodies, with the same roll of film (by rewinding it midroll and leaving the tab sticking out, and under the same ambient light lighting conditions, with the same exposure, and of better subject matter, perhaps like a book shelf that fills up the image completely. Scan the film with the same scanner, and then resize them to 72pp, not 300ppi.

I would be interested in seeing the results then..

JP
click on thumbnails for full image